Friday, July 29, 2011

As we all know, the last few weeks have been a veritable orgy of headlines and revelations about the murky goings on at the News of the World and other organs of the Murdoch empire.

Not one day goes past when the media and politicians aren't in our face telling us (with breathless excitement) about the latest "revelation".

Yesterday was no exception, with the "news" that Sara Payne may (or may not) have been targeted by the News of The World.

At this point may I raise my head above the parapet, and make a few observations?

1 Do people really think that these sort of shenanigans are solely the preserve of the Murdoch empire?

2 When people pick up a tabloid (or for that matter a "quality" paper) that spills the beans on some Z list celebrity and his/her "peccadilloes", how the hell do the readers think that the paper gets its information? Yonks ago Prince Charles had one of his calls to Camilla (about tampons etc) recorded and placed in the public domain (ermmm..wasn't that phone hacking?).

3 The level of shock and hysteria about the methodology of the Murdochs et al, is all very well. However, if we are all so shocked, why the hell do papers such as the late News of the World sell so many copies?

4 The politicians, police and journalists have been at this for years (feeding each other secrets and lies, in exchange for money or favours). Why now, suddenly, are they all so shocked and keen to address the problem?

5 Why are the media and politicians focussing solely on this trash, and filling up each day's news agenda with "Hackgate" stories?

There are many more serious issues facing us eg; the US debt ceiling fiasco, the imminent collapse of the Euro, Greek default, famine in Africa, the state of the economy, the future of the NHS, the Middle East and public sector etc etc.

Am I being cynical, or are Nanny and her chums using the Murdoch issue to divert us from the really important issues (the issues that Nanny knows she has contributed to, but doesn't want to be held to account for)?

The focus on Murdoch by the incestuous "family" of Nanny, the media and the police serves them well and can be described (as one might describe a tactical manoeuvre in war) as the "Murdoch Manoeuvre".

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Nanny cannot resist building databases, and hates to remove data from these databases once she has uploaded it.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has reneged on a promise to remove the DNA profiles of people arrested but not charged by the police with a crime, ie one million innocent people, from the police DNA database.

Police will retain the DNA profiles in anonymised form, leaving open the possibility of connecting them up with people's names, ministers have admitted.

Currently, in England and Wales, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence are retained by the police, regardless of whether they were charged or convicted.

The police national DNA database holds over five million profiles, including one million people with no criminal conviction.

Given that our police seem happy to sell personal details and to leak like the Titanic to the press, this is not exactly a very "welcome" development!

As we bask in the warm fuzzy feeling of a post Murdoch world (if the politicians and police who sucked at his teat have their way), let us not forget the children!

Nanny, now that the school holidays are once again foisted upon the adult world, is more than a little concerned about the adverse effects that the Sun (the star not the paper owned by News Corp) may have on kids.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the All party Parliamentary Group on Skin (FFS! don't our politicians have better things to do with their time? - one trusts that it has no connection with cosmetic companies that produce skin care products?) recently conducted a survey of some parents and found that (shock horror!) 40% of their sprogs had got some sunburn at some stage at school.

Big deal!

I regularly had sunburn when playing cricket at school too!

It happens.

Very sensibly our school also insisted that jackets still be worn when outside in the sun, dignity and dress sense should always come before personal comfort;)

Monday, July 25, 2011

Given the recent hysterical hue and cry over police bribes, phone hacking and email hacking (something that the political "elite" have known about for years) one would be forgiven for thinking (at least that's how the politicians etc are playing it) that these activities only ever "allegedly" took place wrt News International.

Nanny has finally admitted what we, "the drinking classes", knew all along. Namely that her "safe drinking limits" were utter bollocks.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee will look at the evidence behind current guidelines which say men should not regularly drink more than four units of alcohol a day while women should have no more than three.

Errrmm..you mean to say that these limits have been promulgated by Nanny via print and TV campaigns (at great expense to the taxpayer) without Nanny first checking the evidence behind them?

In other countries, eg Italy, France and Spain, drink limits are higher.

A member of the Royal College of Physicians' (who was on the original working party in 1987 that gave birth to the daily drink limit) has admitted the figures were "plucked out of the air".

The lack of scientific rigour in Nanny's anti drink campaign should come as no surprise at all to the loyal readers of this site, many of her other "scientific truths" (used to lecture us about our lifestyles) have been exposed as being based on guesses, lies, prejudice and fantasy.

Suffice to say it is always best to ignore Nanny's advice, as it is invariably bollocks.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Despite all the hoo hah being whipped up by our "respected" politicians over the Murdoch hacking scandal, we should not lose sight of the fact that it's not just News Corp that "allegedly" has stuck its nose in people's private affairs.

Nanny is pretty adept at poking her nose in too.

Last year, it transpires that Nanny's organs of state (eg the police and town halls) asked for confidential communications (access private telephone and email records) information on more than half a million occasions.

Yes, this is the same police (don't just blame the Met btw, all police forces are at it) that happily sells details of arrests, phone accounts, pings etc to the media!

This being Nanny Britain, many of the requests apparently had errors in them, which led to the wrong people being monitored.

Nanny never misses a trick to fill her coffers by screwing her long suffering and hard working citizens out of ever more of their hard earned income.

Who could blame her?

The country is £4.8 Trillion in debt, and there is no way she intends to starve!

Anyhoo, Nanny's local councils have come up with another wheeze to keep themselves in the luxury to which they have become accustomed. This time they have hit upon the idea of using legislation (the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) to force people who hand out leaflets in the street to buy licences.

Clever eh?

Now, I know that corporations who hire people to hand out gazillions of leaflets advertising their unwanted products can be deemed to be a nuisance (given that most of these leaflets are thrown into the bin). However, the legislation will also apply to anyone who hands out leaflets, even those who are looking for their lost cat.

Let us not forget that the origins of the "free" press (a scourge of governments throughout the ages) were the Pamphleteers.

Today the modern "Pamphleteers" are the small-scale organisations eg; Women's Institutes, comedy clubs, student societies and political campaigners. These organisations (eg if operating in Basildon) are forced to pay £350 to hand out leaflets on a Saturday, those who operate in Wolverhampton are being charged £262 per distributor.

Approximately 45 local authorities in England now insist that people have to buy a licence to hand out leaflets.

The councils claim that this is a litter related issue.

Errmmm..if people throw the leaflets on the street then surely it is for them to be fined, not the pamphleteer?

The reality in fact is that it is a great way to make money, and to restrict the freedom of speech of their hard pressed citizens.

Congratulations to Nanny's councillors in Bedford for coming up with a particularity imaginative way to screw the local council taxpayers out of even more money.

A new penalty charge of £1000 is being considered by the counci,l to be imposed on people who leave their bins out for more than 24 hours after they have been emptied....lest a blind person bumps into them.

Errrmm....surely a blind person is as much at risk of bumping into them in the period leading up to the 24 hour deadline, as after?

This seems to me nothing more than a pathetic attempt at the age old practice followed by councils of

What a nice start to the week to discover (aside from the ongoing farce wrt News Corp and our corrupt police et al) that Nanny's "respected" local councils have been keeping a little list of thousands of people who ever crossed swords with her/her councils.

Nanny's councils have listed the details of "undesirable" members of the public who have been involved in any trivial row with the council eg wrt dustmen.

The list covers approximately 9,000 people, most of whom have never been charged with or convicted of a crime.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

I am gemused to see that another piece of "research" promulgated by Nanny as "fact" appears now to be bollocks.

You recall that Nanny has been banging on a lot about "hydration" and making sure we drink several (8 to be precise) glasses of water a day?

Well my old muckers it turns out that this may in fact be unnecessary, and that humans can (if they eat sensibly and drink sensibly) hydrate themselves perfectly well without having to down extra glasses of water each day.

Dr Margaret McCartney, a GP from Glasgow, wrote in the BMJ stating (what most doctors already know) there is no scientific evidence that we need so much extra water.

How is that this myth about needing 8 glasses a day keeps getting spewed forth. Well it seems that some companies, such as Danone, have been pushing "research" to Nanny that supports the myth and have sponsored the 8 a day concept.

Danone?

Yes, that's right, they own several well known brands of bottled water.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Nanny, possibly relieved at the avalanche of data being spewed forth about the Murdoch empire's "moral lapses", recently and rather quietly launched "The Police National Database".

Another day, another database!

This particular database will hold the records up to 6 million apparently innocent people, including every victim of sexual assault and domestic violence.

All 43 police forces in England and Wales and other law enforcement agencies will be able to access the database...along with members of News International and their hired stooges (topical "joke" their folks!).

Jennie Cronin, a director at the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), the body in charge of the database, estimated that the records of between 10 and 15 million people would be held (that's between 16% to 24% of the entire population).

Given that approximately 9.2 million people in the UK have criminal records, that leaves up to almost 6 million on the database who are we assume innocent.

Approximately 12,000 approved police officers and staff will be able to access the database.

Would these be of the same quality and high ethical standards as those who allegedly sold information and contact details of all and sundry (including the Queen) to News International?

David Davis, the former Conservative shadow home secretary, said in a matter of fact manner and without any apparent irony:

"Historically police databases have sometimes been made available to people outside of law enforcement agencies. This cannot be afforded for the PND to work properly."

Errmmm...quite!

Given that databases are notoriously leaky, and given the ongoing furore over police receiving payments for selling details of ordinary citizens to News International; does anyone trust the database and indeed the police not to leak information?

Monday, July 11, 2011

I am gemused to see that Nanny, not content with lecturing adults about obesity and exercise, has now taken to lecturing babies and toddlers about exercise.

Seemingly babies and toddlers need to exercise more, 3 hours a day in fact.

Errmm....precisely how do you get a baby to exercise more? They either move around and explore the world they live in (ie exercise in natural way), or are restrained from doing so by overprotective parents.

The issue, it seems, is not the amount of exercise but the "restraints" imposed on a baby's natural movements/curiosity by risk averse/lazy parents.

It beats me how generations of parents over the millennia managed to function before the advent of Nanny!

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

The ongoing News of The World scandal (each day brings fresh headlines of outrageous intrusions and spying) has caused an explosion of indignation and outrage from those spied on (quite rightly so) and the "establishment".

Unsurprisingly, there are calls for news laws to champion privacy and to stop the media from getting up to this sort of nonsense ever again.

However, before an angry mob lights their torches and marches towards the News of The World's HQ with the intention of administering "justice", let us step back and consider what has happened here and what might happen if new laws are hastily rushed through.

Innocent families have had their lives turned upside down by unscrupulous tabloid journalists and paid lackeys in the world of private detection.

However, the purpose of these actions was to harvest data and information used in news stories.

Who buys these papers to read these stories?

Errmm..that would be the British public.

The monster of intrusive and sick journalism has been of our own creation.

Moving on to the methods used by these media organs, aside from using private detectives who else helped them?

Errrmm..that would be the police, who have been receiving kickbacks for tips offs and passing on details etc.

Ever wondered how it was that the media got hold of the details of Chris Jefferies (the innocent man arrested by police, because he had "funny" hair, in the Joanna Yeates murder case)?

Is it not "odd" that the police have had (apparently for several years now) details of these hacking attempts, yet only now are they conducting a "proactive" investigation?

There is something seriously wrong with our police, and it needs to be sorted out now.

Moving on to the politicians who are screaming for blood and strict privacy laws.

Errmm..who is it who would have most to gain if their corrupt business practices and hypocritical sex lives were kept hidden?

What the News of The World (and other media organisations) have done (and continue to do) is without doubt repellent. These people should crawl under a stone and shrivel up and die.

However, do not forget they have done this because there is a demand to read trash, and because the police and others have happily been helping them and allowing them to get away with it.

Sadly the media are but a reflection and creation of our own personal hypocrisies.

That being said, be careful of siren calls for strict and hastily drafted new privacy laws; our "respected" and corrupt politicians have much to gain by this and we, as a democracy, have everything to lose.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

I was gemused to read recently that our "respected" and "thrifty" local councils may soon have a new weapon at their disposal in their ongoing battle of Ker Farking Ching.

"In bin" cameras have been developed that record what someone has thrown away every time they use their kitchen bin, the pictures are then sent to a social networking site so that their rubbish can be monitored and neighbours can comment on their recycling habits.

Errrmmm...what kind of saddo would spend hours watching an in bin camera on the net (especially given the vast amount of free porn available)?

BinCam, as it is called by the people who developed it in Newcastle University, has been trialled inside of students' kitchen bin lids. The trials will be extended to student houses at three universities in Britain and Germany later this year, and then on to staff homes.

Methinks that if any council ever tried this one out (I am sure that many would love to), then the camera would end up in a very dark place indeed!

Friday, July 01, 2011

I must confess to wondering about the priorities of our police these days, especially when I read stories such as the one I am about to relate to you about what happened to Charlie Lindoe (13) a resident of Great Horkesley.

It seems that, as happens in towns and villages across the country, the lads of village have settled themselves into two rival camps/gangs. As such there has been some ongoing (and I dare say highly annoying) argy bargy between the two gangs in the village.

Seemingly the other Monday an incident took place between the two gangs, when an apple was allegedly thrown by Charlie at another boy who allegedly received a bruised arm.

Roll forward to 11.20pm Saturday night, and Charlie's father (Clive Lindoe) went to answer the doorbell to find two police officers standing there.

Following some "discussion" (I have no idea as to whether the discussion was "level headed" or "agitated") Charlie was woken from his bed and told to come downstairs (lest he be arrested).

Charlie was then made to sign a neighbourhood resolution agreement (used to resolve minor disputes), despite the fact he denies throwing the apple.

Mr Lindoe has now raised a complaint against Essex police about the manner in which they handled this.

Now, I can well suspect that the full story (from either side) is not probably out in the media. I can also sympathise with residents of the village, if they have had to put up with ongoing argy bargy between a bunch of annoying teens. I dare say that some action was needed to knock some sense into the gangs.

However, does calling at someone's house 5 days after the alleged apple throwing incident at 11.20pm constitute a measured and proportional response, and does it constitute and effective use of police time and resources?

I well recall when I was at school, board rubbers and other objectives flying past our heads on a regular basis (note, these projectiles were being hurled by masters at us); yet no one ever called in the police.

-
*Easy 24-Hour Glazing*
In the event that you need your windows repaired avoid Easy 24-Hour Glazing.
Here is an email I sent to them 5th November:
"
...

6 years ago

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive